Topic 8: Strategy Implementation

Locating R&D Activities

A. Corporate VS Divisional
Building organizations that are responsive to change is one of the major tasks of innovation strategy. The R&D and
related technical functions within the firm are central features of this capacity to learn. The nature and purpose of the large
firms’ technological activities vary greatly as shown in Table 6-1. Contrast R&D activities of interest to different parts of the
firm:
• Corporate level: time horizons are long, learning feedback loops slow, internal linkages weak, linkages to external
knowledge sources strong, and projects relatively cheap.
• Business unit level: time horizons are short, learning feedback loops fast, internal linkages (with production and
marketing) strong, and projects expensive

Corporate VS Divisional Laboratories

Two dimensions in the organizational location of a firm’s R&D activities:
• Physical location, determined mainly by the importance of the main organizational interface: the corporate
laboratory towards the general development of fundamental fields of science and technology, and the divisional
laboratories towards present day businesses
• Its funding, determined by where the potential benefits will be captured: by some of the established divisions or by
the corporation as a whole
Four possible categories of R&D activities in the firm:
The dynamic capabilities approach has placed most emphasis on capability-building at the business unit level, and has
somewhat neglected the potential contribution of the corporate center to the development of new capabilities. The
potential roles of the corporate center can be grouped into four areas: leveraging, integration, reconfiguration and
learning.
1. The center may leverage existing capabilities by identifying resources within business units, recognizing where
these might be exploited by other business units, and implementing the necessary organizational changes to
execute the transfer. For example, the drug Viagra was originally developed for cardiac markets, but trials
revealed side effects which could be beneficial in the treatment of erectile dysfunction.
2. The center may also co-ordinate and integrate resources across business units, by supporting cross-business
development groups. For example, the development of products and services for home automation demands the
integration of capabilities in electronics, software, telecommunications, and the manufacture of both brown and
white goods. The most successful firms in this emerging market have been those that have successfully
integrated these capabilities, which reside in different business units.
3. In extreme cases a potential innovation may not have an obvious home in any existing business unit, because the
market does not yet exist or is not served by a unit, or the business model is fundamentally different. This is a
common problem with more radical innovations. In these cases, the center may need to create a new business
unit to develop and exploit the innovation. The reconfiguration of resources is different to integration, and consists
of the recombination of capabilities to produce economies of scale or scope. The center is best placed to identify
the potential for consolidation. For example, the need for customer support might be common across a number of
business units, and a solution using a call center might only be practical if these needs are pooled.
4. Finally, the center can influence learning within the business units by its funding and assessment of R&D at the
business unit level, and by encouraging interaction across business units.

Corporate R&D: Centralization, Decentralization or External Collaboration

• there are no simple rules that tell managers how to strike the right balance between corporate and divisional initiatives
in R&D – a situation that is further complicated by the growth of so-called ‘strategic alliances’ in R&D with
organizations external to the firm
• Four sets of factors that will influence the proper balance:
1. The firm’s main technological trajectory. This gives strong guidance on the appropriate balance. At one extreme,
the corporate initiatives are very important in the chemically based – and particularly the pharmaceutical –
industry, where fundamental discoveries at the molecular level are often directly applicable in technological
development. At the other extreme, corporate-level laboratories are less important in sectors – like aircraft and
automobiles – that are based on complex products and production systems, where the benefits of basic advances
are more indirect (e.g. the use of simulation technologies), and the critical interface is between R&D and design,
on the one hand, and production, on the other.
2. The degree of maturity of the technology. The examples of optoelectronics and biotechnology show that, after the
emergence of a fundamental technological breakthrough, extended periods of trial, error and learning are
necessary before specific technological opportunities begin to emerge. During the early ‘incubation’ stage, there
are advantages in isolating such learning processes from immediate commercial pressure by locating them in the
corporate laboratory, before transfer to a more market-oriented framework in an established division or internal
venture group.
3. Corporate strategic style. The corporate R&D laboratory will have low importance in firms whose strategies are
entirely driven by short-term financial performance in existing products. Such ‘market-led’ strategies will
concentrate on the bottom row of division-level funding, and miss the opportunities emerging from the
development and exploitation of radical new technologies.
 4. Links to ‘new science’-based technologies. New forms of corporate linkages with basic and academic research
are emerging in the ‘new sciences’ that have grown out of recent advances in molecular biology, nanotechnology
and IT. Advances in these fields are the basis of the growth of firms spun off from universities, since they have
reduced the costs of technical experimentation to a level where university-type laboratories and research methods
can make significant technical advances. This has also had the effect of increasing both the range of
technological opportunities that large firms can exploit, and the uncertainties surrounding their eventual
usefulness. Large firms therefore prefer to explore these opportunities through collaborations until the
uncertainties are reduced.

B. Global VS Local
Some analysts and practitioners have argued that, following the globalization of product markets, financial transactions
and direct investment, large firms’ R&D activities should also be globalized – not only in their traditional role of supporting
local production – but also in order to create interfaces with specialized skills and innovative opportunities at a world level.
What Should Management Make of ‘Techno-globalism’?
Controversy remains both in the interpretation of this general picture, and in the identification of implications for the future.
Our own views are as follows:
1. There are major efficiency advantages in the geographic concentration in one place of strategic R&D for
launching major new products and processes (first model and production line). These are: (a) dealing with
unforeseen problems, since proximity allows quick, adaptive decisions; (b) integrating R&D, production and
marketing, since proximity allows integration of tacit knowledge through close personal contacts.
2. The nature and degree of international dispersion of R&D will also depend on the company’s major technological
trajectory, and the strategically important points for integration and learning that relate to it. Thus, whereas
automobile firms find it difficult to separate their R&D geographically from production when launching a major new
product, drug firms can do so, and instead locate their R&D close to strategically important basic research and
testing procedures.
3. In deciding about the internationalization of their R&D, managers must distinguish between: (a) becoming part of
global knowledge networks – in other words, being aware of, and able to absorb – the results of R&D being
carried out globally. Practicing scientists and engineers have always done this, and it is now easier with modern
IT. However, business firms are finding it increasingly useful to establish relatively small laboratories in foreign
countries in order to become strong members of local research networks and thereby benefit from the person-
embodied knowledge behind the published papers; (b) the launching of major innovations, which remains
complex, costly, and depends crucially on the integration of tacit knowledge. This remains difficult to achieve
across national boundaries. Firms therefore still tend to concentrate major product or process developments in
one country. They will sometimes choose a foreign country when it offers identifiable advantages in the skills and
resources required for such developments, and/or access to a lead market.
4. Matching global knowledge networks with the localized launching of major innovations will require increasing
international mobility amongst technical personnel, and the increasing use of multi-national teams in launching
innovations.
5. Advances in IT will enable spectacular increases in the international flow of codified knowledge in the form of
operating instructions, manuals and software. They may also have some positive impact on international
exchanges of tacit knowledge through teleconferencing, but not anywhere near to the same extent. The main
impact will therefore be at the second stage of the ‘product cycle’, when product design has stabilized, and
production methods are standardized and documented, thereby facilitating the internationalization of production.
Product development and the first stage of the product cycle will still require frequent and intense personal
exchanges, and be facilitated by physical proximity. Advances in IT are therefore more likely to favor the
internationalization of production than of the process of innovation.
The two polar extremes of organizing innovation globally are the specialization-based and integration-based, or network
structure.
1. In the specialization-based structure, the firm develops global centers of excellence in different fields, which are
responsible globally for the development of specific technology or product or process capability. The advantage of
such global specialization is that it helps to achieve a critical mass of resources and makes coordination easier. In
addition, it may allow location close to a global innovation cluster. The main disadvantages of global specialization
are the potential isolation of the center of excellence from global needs, and the subsequent transfer of
technologies to subsidiaries worldwide.
2. In contrast, in the integration-based structure different units around the world each contribute to the development
of technology projects. The advantage of this approach is that it draws upon a more diverse range of capabilities
and international perspectives. In addition, it can encourage competition amongst different units. However, the
integrated approach suffers from very high costs of coordination, and commonly suffers from duplication of efforts
and inefficient use of scarce resources.
In practice, hybrids of these two extreme structures are common, often as a result of practical compromises and trade-offs
necessary to accommodate history, acquisitions and politics. For example, specialization by center of excellence may
include contributions from other units, and integrated structures may include the contribution of specialize units. The main
factors influencing the decision where to locate R&D globally are:
1. The availability of critical competencies for the project;
2. The international credibility (within the organization) of the R&D manager responsible for the project;
3. The importance of external sources of technical and market knowledge, e.g. sources of technology, suppliers, and
customers;
4. The importance and costs of internal transactions, e.g. between engineering and production;
5. Cost and disruption of relocating key personnel to the chosen site.

Allocating Resources for Innovation: Organizing Resource Allocation to Innovative

Activities
No method can guarantee success, that no single approach to pre-evaluation meets all circumstances, and that –
whichever method is used – the most important outcome of a properly structured evaluation is improved communication.
These conclusions reflect three of the characteristics of corporate investments in innovative activities:
1. They are uncertain, so that success cannot be assured.
2. They involve different stages that have different outputs that require different methods of evaluation.
3. Many of the variables in an evaluation cannot be reduced to a reliable set of figures to be plugged into a formula,
but depend on expert judgments: hence the importance of communication, especially between the corporate
functions concerned with R&D and related innovative activities, on the one hand, and with the allocation of
financial resources, on the other.

Organizing Resource Allocation to Innovative Activities

The corporate R&D community recognizes that the successful allocation of resources to innovation depends less on
robustness of decision-making techniques than on the organizational processes in which they are embedded. According
to Mitchell and Hamilton, there are three (overlapping) categories of R&D that large firms must finance. Each category has
different objectives and criteria for selection, the implications of which are set out in Table 6.4.
 1. Knowledge-building
This is the early-stage and relatively inexpensive research for nurturing and maintaining expertise in fields that could lead
to future opportunities or threats. It is often treated as a necessary overhead expense, and sometimes viewed with
suspicion (and even incomprehension) by senior management obsessed with short-term financial returns and exploiting
existing markets, rather than creating new ones.
With knowledge-building programs, the central question for the company is: ‘What are the potential costs and risks of not
mastering or entering the field?’ Decisions about such programs should be taken solely by R&D staff on the basis of
technical judgments, and especially those staff concerned with the longer term. Market analysis should not play any role.
Outside financial linkages are likely to be with academic and other specialist groups, and to take the form of a grant.
2. Strategic positioning
These activities are in between knowledge-building and business investment, and are an important – and often neglected
– link between them. They involve applied R&D and feasibility demonstration, in order to reduce technical uncertainties,
and to build in-house competence, so that the company is capable of transforming technical competence into profitable
investment. For this type of R&D, the appropriate question is: ‘Is the program likely to create an option for a profitable
investment at a later date?’ Comparisons are sometimes made with financial ‘stock options’, a firm can purchase the
option to buy a stock at a specified price, before a specified date – in anticipation of increase in its value in future.
Decisions about this category of R&D program should involve divisions, R&D directors and the chief executive, precisely
because – as their description implies – these programs will help determine the strategic options open to the company at
a later date. At this stage, market analysis should be broad. A variety of evaluation methods may be used, but they will be
more judgmental than rigorously quantitative. Costs will be higher than those of knowledge-building, but much lower than
those of full-scale business investment. As with knowledge-building programs, both high volatility in predictions and
expectations, and long-time horizons, are not unwelcome signs of unacceptably high risk, but welcome signs of rich
possibilities and sufficient time to explore them. Outside linkages require tighter management than those related to
knowledge-building, probably through a contract or equity participation.
3. Business investment
This is the development, production and marketing of new and better products, processes and services. It involves
relatively large-scale expenditures, evaluated with conventional financial tools such as net present value. In such projects,
the appropriate question is: ‘What are the potential costs and benefits in continuing with the project?’ Decisions should be
taken at the level of the division bearing the costs and expecting the benefits. Success depends on meeting the precise
requirements of specific groups of users, and therefore depends on careful and targeted marketing. Financial
commitments are high, so that volatility in technological and market conditions is unwelcome, since it increases risk. Long
time horizons are also financially unwelcome, since they increase the financial burden. Given the size and
complexity of development and commercialization, external linkages need to be tightly controlled through majority
ownership or a joint venture. Given the scale of resources involved, careful and close monitoring of progress against
expectations is essential. For such projects most firms rely on financial methods to evaluate their project portfolio,
around 77% of firms according to a recent survey. However, the same survey revealed that only 36% of the best
performing firms rely on financial methods, compared to 39% which use strategic methods. An explanation for the
relatively poor performance of financial methods is that the sophistication of the models often far exceeds the quality of
the data inputs, particularly at the early stages of a project’s life.

Technology and Corporate Strategy: Compatibility Between Corporate Strategy and the
Nature of Technological Opportunities
• In linking technology to corporate strategy, it must be remembered that the links run both ways.
• The R&D function should play a central role in the formulation of an innovation strategy, as part of overall corporate
strategy
• Overall corporate strategy should determine both organizational structure and technology strategy.
• Another view is that different kinds of technological opportunities require different kinds of strategies and structures if
they are to be exploited effectively.
• According to Chandler, large firms’ corporate headquarters have two functions: entrepreneurial promotion and
administrative control. Gould and Campbell identify three generic corporate strategic styles that each have a different
balance between the entrepreneurial and administrative functions. The three ‘strategic styles’ are appropriate for
different types of technology and market

1. Financial control strategies are reflected in a strong administrative monitoring function in corporate HQ, and an
expectation of high, short-term financial returns. Technological investments in knowledge-building and strategic
positioning will be neither understood nor encouraged, but will concentrate instead on low-risk incremental
improvements in established businesses. As such, this strategic style is suited to conglomerates in low-technology
industries. There will therefore be relatively little organic growth, and in high-tech industries many technology-based
opportunities that are missed rather than exploited.
2. Strategic planning strategies are reflected in strong central entrepreneurial direction with corporate HQ giving strong
encouragement to investments in knowledge-building and strategic positioning, and taking a central role in deciding
technological priorities and – more generally – of showing what Leonard-Barton calls ‘strategic intent’. As such, this
strategic style is most appropriate for high-tech, focused and lumpy businesses, such as automobiles, drugs and
petroleum, where experimentation is costly, and customer markets clearly defined.
3. Strategic control strategies also give high priorities to entrepreneurial technological investments, but devolve the
formulation and execution of strategies much more to the divisions and business units. Instead of exercising ‘strategic
intent’, the HQ shows ‘strategic recognition’ in recognizing and reinforcing successful entrepreneurial ventures
emerging from the divisions, and which become separate divisions themselves. As such, this style of strategy is best
suited to high-tech businesses with pervasive technologies, varied markets and relatively low costs of
experimentation.
Mismatches between a firm’s strategic style and its core technology will inevitably cause instability, and can have two
causes. First, the imposition of a strong style of financial control in a sector where high technological investments –
especially in knowledge-building and strategic positioning – are necessary for long-term survival. Second, the changing
nature of technological opportunities, which require a changed strategic style for their effective exploitation. In the past the
main threat was considered to be the inability of the established firms to master the new technology (e.g. makers of horse-
drawn carriages could not make automobiles). However, large firms today all typically have R&D laboratories that enable
them to monitor, assess and (if necessary) master most new technology. The more difficult challenge now is to deal with
the organizational implications of the new technology, which may require radical and disruptive changes in, for example,
products, markets, degree of centralization, the boundaries of corporate divisions, the key internal interfaces and external
networks, and the relative power and influence of various professional groups.

Organizational Processes in Small Firms

• In small firms, deliberate organizational processes to integrate the technical function with production, marketing,
strategy and resource allocation are of less central importance than in large firms. In general, these functions are less
specialized, and less likely to be separated by physical and organizational distance.
• In large firms, deliberate organizational design and formal procedures are essential as a means of integrating
knowledge, of supporting professional judgments and of getting things done. In small firms, the characteristics of
senior managers – their training, experience, responsibilities and external linkages – play a central role.

Strategic Marketing Issues

Some strategic marketing issues or decisions are as follows:
1. How to make advertisements more interactive to be more effective
2. How to take advantage of Facebook and Twitter conservations about the company and industry
3. To use exclusive dealerships or multiple channels of distribution
4. To use heavy, light, or no TV advertising versus online advertising
5. To limit (or not) the share of business done with a single customer
6. To be a price leader or a price follower
7. To offer a complete or limited warranty
8. To reward salespeople based on straight salary, commission, or a combination salary and commission
Three marketing activities especially important in strategy implementation are listed below and then discussed:
1. Engage customers in social media.
2. Segment markets effectively.
3. Develop and use product-positioning/perceptual maps

Social Media Marketing

• Marketing has evolved to be more about building a two-way relationship with consumers than just informing
consumers about a product or service.
• Marketers increasingly must get customers involved in the company website and solicit suggestions in terms of
product development, customer service, and ideas.
• The company website should enable customers to interact with the firm on social media networks. To manage this
process, larger companies have hired a social media manager(s) to be the voice of the company on social and digital
media sites. The manager(s) responds to comments and problems, track negative or misleading statements, manage
the online discussion about a firm, and gather valuable information about opinions and desires—all of which can be
vital for monitoring strategy implementation progress and making appropriate changes.
• The online community of customers increasingly mirrors the offline community but is much quicker, cheaper, and
effective to reach than traditional focus groups and surveys.
• Successful strategy implementation requires a firm to know what people are saying about it and its products.
Customers are talking about and creating valuable content around every brand through blog posts, tweets, e-mails,
and conversations with family and friends. Instead of ignoring or trying to quash “amateur content,” or trying to drown
it out with “professional advertisements,” the best firms today embrace amateurs’ opinions, desires, and feelings—
because they are the firms’ customers. They learn from and leverage amateur content to improve the authenticity of
their marketing communication.
• Firms benefit immensely by providing incentives to customers to share their thoughts, opinions, and experiences on
the company website.
• The greatest threat is that any kind of negative publicity travels fast online. Seemingly minor ethical and questionable
actions can catapult these days into huge public relations problems for companies as a result of the monumental
online social and business communications.
• Most companies have come to the realization that social networking and video sites are better means of reaching
customers than spending so many marketing dollars on traditional yellow pages, television, magazine, radio, or
newspaper ads
• The use of social media—the platforms on which users build social networks and share information—to build a
company's brand, increase sales, and drive website traffic.
• It involves publishing great content on your social media profiles, listening to and engaging your followers,
analyzing your results, and running social media advertisements.
Market Segmentation
• marketing term that refers to aggregating prospective buyers into groups or segments with common needs and who
respond similarly to a marketing action
• the subdividing of a market into distinct subsets of customers according to needs and buying habits
• enables companies to target different categories of consumers who perceive the full value of certain products and
services differently from one another
• an extension of market research that seeks to identify targeted groups of consumers to tailor products and branding
in a way that is attractive to the group
• objective n is to minimize risk by determining which products have the best chances of gaining a share of a target
market and determining the best way to deliver the products to the market
• important variable in strategy implementation for at least three major reasons:
o First, strategies such as market development, product development, market penetration, and diversification
require increased sales through new markets and products. To implement these strategies successfully, new
or improved market-segmentation approaches are required.
o Second, market segmentation allows a firm to operate with limited resources because mass production, mass
distribution, and mass advertising are not required. Market segmentation enables a small firm to compete
successfully with a large firm by maximizing per-unit profits and per-segment sales.
o Finally, market segmentation decisions directly affect marketing mix variables: product, place, promotion, and
price
THREE CITERIA TO IDENTIFY MARKET SEGMENTS:
1. Homogeneity: common needs with a segment
2. Distinction: being unique from other groups
3. Reaction: similar response to the market
TYPES:
1. Demographic Segmentation: assumes that individuals with similar demographics will have similar needs
2. Geographic Segmentation: groups customers by physical location, assuming that people within a given
geographical area may have similar needs
3. Behavioral Segmentation: groups consumers based on how they have previously interacted with markets and
products
4. Psychographic Segmentation: classify consumers based on their lifestyle, personality, opinions, and interests
BENEFITS:
1. Increased Likelihood of Brand Loyalty
Marketing segmentation provides customers with numerous opportunities to establish a long-lasting connection with a
business. Customers may respond favorably to more direct, personal marketing strategies that encourage inclusiveness,
community, and a sense of belongingness. Market segmentation also boosts the potential of the companies to find the
ideal customer who suits the company’s product range and demographics.
2. Stronger Brand Recognition
Marketing segmentation allows management to think about how it desires to be recognized by a certain group of people.
Once the market niche has been identified, management has to decide what message to produce. The fact that this
message is intended for a specific audience suggests that a company’s branding and marketing are more likely to be
very carefully planned. This can also have the indirect consequences of improving customer interactions with the
business.
3. Increased Market Differentiation
Market segmentation allows businesses to pinpoint the precise message it wants to send to the market and its rivals.
This concept can also aid in product differentiation by highlighting how a business distinguishes itself from other
companies. Management creates a precise impression that is more probable to be recognized and unique than a general
marketing strategy.
4. Improved Utilization of Resources
Marketing segmentation enables management to concentrate on particular customers or demographic groups. Marketing
segmentation facilitates a targeted, precise approach which usually costs less than a broad-reach approach, rather than
attempting to offer products to the complete market.
5. Enhance Digital Advertising Targeting
A corporation can implement more effective customized advertising methods with the help of market segmentation. This
includes social media marketing strategies that target people of a certain age, area, or behavior.
6. Higher Success Rate
Market segmentation includes studying the market and then dividing the whole market into small portions. Through this,
a market can easily understand the potential of the market and its consumers, reducing the risk of loss. Hence, through
market segmentation, the chances of an organization achieving success are higher.
7. Increase Competitiveness
After identifying the target market, a marketer or a business has to focus on competitiveness. Once the business has a
clear understanding of its target market, the competition in the market intensifies. It encourages the marketing team to
find innovative ideas for promoting the brand and effectively differentiate themselves from the competitors. To attract
more customers, the marketing team will have to offer them different offers and discounts, and as the business has a
clear understanding of its customers, it will ultimately help them gain brand loyalty.
8. Customer Retention
Retaining its customers is one of the most essential tasks of a business. Proper market segmentation helps an
organization in doing so by helping them understand the needs of consumers and allowing them to cater to the consumers
with the same effectively. This helps the business in providing the customer with a better experience. Generally, this
connection of understanding needs and catering the same between the market brand and the product or service is
essential in sectors like hospitality, etc. People prefer to go for the product or service which they have used or experienced
and felt great about them.
Product Positioning and Perceptual Mapping
Product Positioning
• sometimes called perceptual mapping
• entails developing schematic representations that reflect how products or services compare to those of the
competitors on dimensions most important to success in the industry
• strategic exercise that defines where your product or service fits in the marketplace and why it is better than
alternative solutions
• goal is to distill who your audience is, what they need, and how your product can uniquely help
• objective is to develop an identity that reflects the product’s value and highlights its competitive advantage over
the other offerings on the market
STEPS:
1. Select key criteria that effectively differentiate products or services in the industry.
2. Diagram a two-dimensional product-positioning map with specified criteria on each axis.
3. Plot major competitors’ products or services in the resultant four-quadrant matrix.
4. Identify areas in the positioning map where the company’s products or services could be most competitive in the
given target market. Look for vacant areas (niches).
5. Develop a marketing plan to position the company’s products or services appropriately.

RULES (for using product positioning as a strategy-implementation tool):

1. Look for the hole or vacant niche, which is a segment of the market currently not being served.
2. Do not serve two segments with the same strategy. Usually, a strategy successful with one segment cannot be
directly transferred to another segment.
3. Do not position yourself in the middle of the map. The middle usually indicates a strategy that is not clearly
perceived to have any distinguishing characteristics.

An effective product-positioning strategy meets two criteria: (1) it uniquely distinguishes a company from the competition
and (2) it leads customers to expect slightly less service than a company can deliver.
Perceptual Mapping
• Also known as positioning mapping
• It helps you analyze visually how your target market perceives your product or service
• A simple graph with a vertical and a horizontal axis, these axes represent the dimensions that you want to
analyze, and you label each with the criteria your customers use to decide whether to buy your offering
• Some perceptual maps use different size circles to indicate the sales volume or market share of the various
competing products.
• Perceptual maps may also display consumers’ ideal points. These points reflect ideal combinations of the two
dimensions as seen by a consumer. Dots are often used to represent one respondent’s ideal combination of the
two dimensions. Areas where there is a cluster of ideal points indicates a market segment. Areas without ideal
points are sometimes referred to as demand voids. A company considering introducing a new product will look for
areas with a high density of ideal points. They will also look for areas without competitive rivals (a vacant niche),
perhaps best done by placing both the (1) ideal points and (2) competing products on the same map.
STEPS:
1. Identify two key attributes that your customer care about
2. Survey your customers to rate your product and your competitors’ product on these attributes
3. Plot the average scores for each product on a two-dimensional chart
4. Analyze the map
➢ Does your product have a distinct, attractive position, compared with its competitors?
➢ Is your product's placement on the grid where you want it to be?
➢ Are there any market gaps that your organization can take advantage of?